2013 (8) TMI 396 - AT - Customs

Leviability of duty - assessee imported and cleared a consignment of Polyether Polypol under brand name of Voranol-3010 - DC by order had decided that Voranol-3010 was leviable to safeguard duty on the basis of lab opinion Held that - The findings of Commissioner (Appeals) was fair and reasonable and no reason to interfere - Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication - the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and allowed the appeal of the assessee - the lower authority proceeded on the basis of evidence of the manufacturer s specification provided by the Department and decided the issues without supplying to them - It was seen from the record that the matter was remanded on an earlier occasion - the submission of learned AR was not maintainable decided agiasnt revenue.

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.310/04 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.
2. Levying safeguard duty on 'Voranol-3010' imported by the respondent.
3. Non-provision of manufacturer's specification to the respondent.
4. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order of the lower appellate authority.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. The respondent had imported 'Polyether Polypol' under the brand name 'Voranol-3010' and the Deputy Commissioner levied safeguard duty based on lab opinion. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, where safeguard duty was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

2. The key issue was the imposition of safeguard duty on 'Voranol-3010'. The Department had collected manufacturer's literature/specifications to support this levy. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the manufacturer's specification was not provided to the respondent, depriving them of natural justice. The Commissioner's order highlighted discrepancies in defining how 'Voranol-3010' falls under the category of goods subject to safeguard duty, emphasizing the need for fairness and justice in such cases.

3. The non-provision of manufacturer's specification to the respondent was a critical factor in the judgment. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the importance of allowing the importers to examine the manufacturer's specification obtained by the Department directly. The failure to provide this opportunity was seen as a denial of natural justice, impacting the respondent's ability to contest the imposition of safeguard duty effectively.

4. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the order of the lower appellate authority was based on the lack of transparency in providing manufacturer's specifications to the respondent. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings as fair and reasonable, agreeing that the importers should have been given the chance to review the manufacturer's specifications before a final decision on the safeguard duty levy. The appeal filed by the Revenue was disposed of in favor of the respondent.

5. Additionally, the cross objections filed by the Revenue were dismissed as they were considered to be in the nature of comments/reply. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural fairness and the importance of providing all relevant information, including manufacturer's specifications, to the concerned parties involved in customs duty disputes.

← Previous Next →